By: Citizen Scribe
Over the last few days I have watched as political “analysts” and assorted pundits alternately lamented and rejoiced and “analyzed” the results of the recent election.
I have watched and listened as self-important, self-appointed authorities opined and pontificated on the “reasons” for Romney’s loss.
And, as I removed myself from the emotional turmoil that surrounds this event, and as I examined the actual data, I arrived at a conclusion at odds with all these “experts” and purveyors of “correct” viewpoint: Romney didn’t lose.
Oh, the election boards and Secretaries of State and other officials have “deemed” that Obama won the election, but the truth is rather otherwise.
What Obama won was the vote count. Remember the maxim from Josef Stalin: “It’s not the people who vote that count, it’s the people who count the votes.”
I predicted that the only way Romney would lose was through vote fraud. As the election returns are now being finalized, we discover that in several districts the final counts added up to more than 100% of the actual registered voters in those areas. The “traditional” Press is, of course, entirely uninterested and incurious about these results, as we would expect from a Fourth-Estate-as-Fifth-Column media community.
Okay, fine, we now know that the election results are fraudulent, and we likewise know that the authorities and media will never acknowledge that possibility. What we now have is an “election” outcome that’s “official” but not legal, “official” but not true, “official” but for which the actual evidence will be destroyed, or already has been.
There is, however, a truth that will only be buried if we allow it to be. Romney didn’t lose. Romney won the support of a significant majority of Americans. The pretender in the White House knows this, his aides know this, and the people who mechanized this outcome know this. Oh, and the Press either knows it or suspects it, and is now deep enough into it that exposing it would mean revealing their own collusion and perfidy.
The reality, though, remains: the real, true majority of Americans did not ask for this outcome, did not support this result, and actually desire something very different from the plans they know this false president has for the nation.
Here is how it’s supposed to work: you know that you voted for Romney (or against Obama), but now you’re supposed to believe that “everybody else” wanted Obama. The “overwhelming majority” of people want Obama, want his policies, and want you to suffer. That’s what the Press will tell you, that’s what the authorities will tell you, that’s what the “official” version will be.
You are now supposed to “accept” your fate. You are now supposed to sit down and shut up. You are now supposed to “accept” the so-called “will of the people.” That’s what you’re supposed to do.
YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO GIVE UP. YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO SUCCUMB. You’re SUPPOSED to stop fighting, stop resisting, stop speaking out.
Yeah, okay, I can’t prove any of that. I don’t have any evidence that supports it. What I DO have is an analytic mind and a series of observations that inform me that the “result” we got is not supported by the events leading up to it.
So what I know and what I can prove are at odds. But there are times when you have to act on what you know, even when you’re being falsely told that what you know is wrong.
I’m still formulating how I need to proceed in light of this new understanding, but what I know, and what I need to factor into my future calculations is the fact that we — the people who love our country and favor fiscal sanity and subscribe to the ideals of the Founders — are not outnumbered. We remain in the majority.
I can’t remember ever having been here. I grew up in the ’60s, but served in the military rather than in Haight-Ashbury. I raised my family to be responsible and self-sufficient, just as my parents did. I guess you could say I was more or less aligned with the “establishment” of the day, even though I have for years disagreed with the trend toward more socialism and fascism.
Today, the Establishment has crossed a line. They have arrayed themselves against the majority of the American people.
I won’t be joining them. I won’t be agreeing with them. I won’t be accepting their “truth.” I will, instead, stand for my truth. And I suspect I am not alone.
The usurpers (for I can’t reasonably refer to them otherwise) are now the “establishment” even though they are really in the minority.
So… that makes us… what?
Well, what do you call someone who stands against the Establishment?
Feels kinda odd to be in those shoes, doesn’t it?
Welcome to the Resistance.
From: Arlene in Israel
Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat)
I’m not done talking about the election. Not by a long shot. But it’s time, here, to return to consideration of other events. Wish I could say I had good news…
Things have heated up again in Israel’s south.
Early Saturday evening, an anti-tank missile was fired at IDF soldiers, reportedly of the Givati Brigade, who were riding a jeep along the fence at the Gaza border — adjacent to central Gaza — doing a security check. Four soldiers were wounded, one seriously and one very seriously. The IDF responded with tank fire and then fire from helicopters. Reports are that three Arabs were killed and several more wounded.
This followed an incident on Thursday in which a tunnel, which extended into Israeli territory and had been packed with hundreds of kilograms of explosives blew up. One soldier was lightly wounded, and it seems a small miracle that this was all that happened.
And now there has begun again what is referred to in the news as an “escalation” in attacks from Gaza. Kassams, mortar shells, and Grad katyushas are being launched — a total of ,more than 30 so far tonight, as I write — into Eshkol, Gadera, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Yavne, Sderot and Sha’ar Hanegev. I’m seeing conflicting reports on whether Islamic Jihad or Hamas is responsible for these attacks.
Again, there is talk of closing schools, as weary residents have to hunker down. Again that breathtaking requirement that they remain within 15 seconds of a shelter.
IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz is calling for a security assessment.
Bottom line: this is an unacceptable situation.
Home Front Defense Minister Avi Dichter apparently agreed, as he said that Israel “must reestablish its military deterrence in Gaza.”
While Alon Shuster, head of Sha’ar Hanegev Regional Council, speaking to Ynet, said “…we now realize there is no easy solution and that the country must address this situation.”
In the north, the situation is not exactly placid either. In this instance, however, it does not appear that there is a deliberate attack on Israel. Rather, there is “spillover” of the fighting going on in Syria near the Israeli border:
Last Monday, an IDF jeep on the Golan Heights was hit, although no one was hurt. On Wednesday, stray bullets hit near an IDF position. On Thursday, three mortar shells landed in a town close to the border.
New rules of engagement for soldiers stationed in the area instruct them to return fire if there is continuous fire that comes from Syria. While there is no desire to provoke confrontation, there is concern about Islamists slipping over the border.
Chief of Staff Gantz visited the northern border this past week and noted that the Syrian war might “become an Israeli matter” if this situation persists. From where he stood, he was able to hear cries of “Allahu Akbar” from across the border — it’s close indeed.
Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya’alon said Syria has been sent several warnings about the situation.
As for the Palestinian Arabs, they are still talking about going to the UN General Assembly, either on November 15 or November 29 — or, maybe they’ll wait. Their announcements are made with the usual clarity. And are accompanied by conflicting statements: this will allow us to proceed more effectively with the peace process; this will render Oslo null and void.
I will examine the situation in more detail as it becomes a bit more clear as to what may transpire. The legal issues are confusing, to say the least — in no small part because not everyone is playing by the rules.
The US, the UK, and Israel are attempting to dissuade them from proceeding.
Not long ago, Abbas made a statement on Israeli television regarding the fact that he would not seek to return to live in S’fat (in the Galil), which is where his family had lived, although he wouldn’t mind visiting. (He has long pretended to be a “refugee” from there, but there are clear statements by him on the record to the effect that his family moved voluntarily.) Now he spoke about a Palestinian state as being compromised of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem.
With this he generated apoplexy among other Palestinian Arab leaders, who furiously accused him of relinquishing the “right of return.” Thus he quickly backtracked: No, no, he was speaking for himself only. Of course the “right of return” is an inalienable right that still exists.
This is noteworthy for only one reason. There may soon be another push by the Obama administration for Israel to sit down with the PA to negotiate. But what is obvious on the face of it is that if the PA demands this “right” that cannot ever be relinquished, then no agreement is possible. (This aside from all the other reasons, of course.) Even if Abbas truly would want to negotiate away this “right,” he would not be able to — not if he valued his safety.
Just before Abbas made his statement, PLO official Farouk Kaddoumi made another sort of proposal: Jordan should annex Judea and Samara (aka the West Bank) he said, thereby creating a Palestinian-Jordanian confederation. End of negotiations, end of Oslo.
But the very hard line Kaddoumi never supported Oslo. He’s still in Tunisia, whence the PLO leadership had come, because he wouldn’t participate in the Palestinian Authority.
Jordan’s King Abdullah, whose position is very shaky, would never support such a proposal, for fear of being overrun totally by the PLO. There’s history here: His father, King Hussein, in a bloody engagement, threw the PLO out of Jordan in 1970, when Arafat threatened to wrest control of the country.
Jordan had occupied the West Bank from 1949-67, and today some 70% of Jordanians are of Palestinian origins. But in recent years Jordan has actually been stripping some Palestinians of their Jordanian citizenship.
Nonetheless, I found this proposal interesting. Only becaused it seemed to me that Kaddoumi was expressing a weariness with the game-playing of Oslo and attempting to put a new scenario into play.
Administration officials are being cited in news reports saying that, while President Obama has not made his final decision regarding a new Secretary of State, first on his list is Susan Rice, currently US Ambassador to the UN.
Heaven help us. She makes Hillary look pro-Israel.
When PM Netanyahu addressed the General Assembly recently, she opted to absent herself.
This past February, in a speech to the Security Council she said: “For more than four decades Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 has undermined Israel’s security and corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region. Continued settlement activity violates Israel’s international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace.”
This statement, you must understand, came immediately after the US had vetoed a SC resolution on Israeli settlements. It was vetoed because Obama wanted to see negotiations, and feared that interference by the UN would be counterproductive to his goal. All she had to do was veto. There was no need to editorialize. As Omni Ceren put it, in Commentary: “the American ambassador to the United Nations telegraphed — through words, body language, and her anti-Israel tantrum — that she didn’t support the policy she was implementing on behalf of the president.”
And the above is just the latest on Rice.
She is on record as having said that: “when we meet our financial obligations to the UN, we make Americans safer,” and “the UN promotes universal values Americans hold dear.” (If THAT doesn’t give you nightmares…)
According to Rick Moran:
“Her steadfast belief that poverty, not radical Islamist ideology, is responsible for terrorism has upended 20 years of American anti-terrorism policy. Rice is the inspiration behind the Obama administration’s de-emphasizing military action against terrorists, while looking for ways to address the ‘root causes’ of the violence. She co-authored an academic article in 2005 that postulated that terrorism was ‘a threat borne of both oppression and deprivation.'”
In 2009, she counseled against the US pulling out of the virulently anti-Israel Durban Conference (although the US ultimately did).
From: Arlene in Israel
I want to begin by switching gears today, to consider an important, and much neglected issue. Last Thursday night, a symposium — co-sponsored by B’nai Brith World Center, the Menachem Begin Center and the Ecumenical Theological Research Fraternity in Jerusalem — was held on “The Present and Future of Christians in the Middle East.”
That Christians in Muslim and Arab countries in this region have it very difficult was hardly news to me. But this symposium provided a broader context and some significant information.
Raymond Ibrahim, author and ME specialist with the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the ME Forum, is an American born to Christian Copts from Egypt.
He provided an historical context for the situation:
What we are seeing today is a 1,400-year long manifestation of a Muslim doctrine of conquest of Christians. This is not an historical aberration or a modern phenomenon. It is what has been happening over the centuries.
And this has been a conquest by the sword. There is a Koranic doctrine of hostility to non-Muslims.
Across the region, there was a Christian presence before the advent of Islam, and now it is said that “The entire Islamic world is one occupied territory.” This conquest began in the Arabian peninsula and spread to Egypt, Syria and elsewhere. Fifteen hundred years ago 90% of Egypt was under Copt control.
With this conquest has come a pattern of destruction of churches, degradation, persecution and forced conversions.
Today there is a serious humanitarian crisis. In different continents, in different cultures, there is persecution of Christians. The common denominator is Islam. In Pakistan, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey, Egypt, etc. In recent months, tens of thousands of Christians have been shoved out of Mali. The Islamist opposition in Syria attacks Christians. In Egypt, the Copts are suffering with the rise of the Brotherhood.
Says Ibrahim: The situation of the Christians makes the Palestinian issue a non-issue. Christians in the US do not sufficiently address this suffering. But leaders within liberal denominations are eager to promote the Palestinian issue.
The same can be said about the media.
Juliana Taimoorazy is an Assyrian Christian. The Assyrians (also known as Chaldeans) are indigenous to the region — descended from the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians. A Semitic people, not Arab and not Kurdish, they converted to Christianity in the First Century of the Common Era and still utilize Aramaic.
Taimoorazy fled Iran, where she had been born, at age 15 and ultimately made her way to the US, where she has lived for over 20 years. There she founded the Iraqi Christian Relief Council, which lends badly needed assistance to the beleaguered Assyrian Christians living in Iraq.
The information she provided was chilling:
From 1914-18, three out of four Assyrian Christians were murdered: As the Turks slaughtered Armenians so did they kill the Assyrians, some 750,000 in total.
From 2004 until the present there have been 80 church bombings, as well as numerous kidnappings. In the south of Iraqi there is ethnic cleansing. In the north, persecution by Kurds.
There were over one million Christians in Iraq, but the number is down to 450,000 because the rest have fled as refugees, to Syria, Jordan and elsewhere. Some 45% of all Iraqi refugees are Christian. There are those who believe the solution is for all to leave, but there is reluctance because they have ancient roots in the land.
Priests are not only murdered, their bodies are cut into pieces and scattered around their churches.
Even more chilling were the still photos and video clips she showed. The portrayals of massacres of Christians were starkly reminiscent of Jewish suffering during pogroms over the centuries, and I knew I had to write about this. It is forbidden to remain silent.
In particular, I encourage Christians reading this to learn more about suffering fellow Christians, and how you can help them.
Taimoorazy said the Obama administration has been contacted about this situation, but there is no response.
Dr. Moti Kedar, who teaches Arabic at Bar Ilan University and is an expert on Arab populations, provided further insight into the situation of Christians in the Middle East.
The Copts, he told us, were the original Egyptians. “Copt” is a Greek version of the word “Egypt.”
It was the Christians who brought ideas of nationalism to the Middle East after exposure to this ideology in Europe. Their hope was that everyone would be equal, united as patriots of a nation. But their notion of converting Islamism to nationalism never worked. Muslims focus on the Umm, the Muslim nation — intended to unite Muslims.
Muslims are historically hostile to Jews and Christians. According to their beliefs, Islam came to replace Judaism and Christianity, not to live side by side with these faiths. It is for this reason that they have a common practice of building mosques over churches — or turning churches into mosques.
Even though Muslims have a long history of persecution of Christians, the situation has been worse in recent times.
First there is a factor of frustration. They knew that Islam was supposed to replace Christianity because their Koran has told them so. But the US, a much despised Christian nation, has been successful. Not only successful — via modern technology, the despised American culture has invaded their lands. As a result of this, they vent their frustration upon those Christians living within their lands.
Then there is the increased radicalization of Islam. The Copts did not have it good under Mubarak. It’s worse with the Brotherhood.
Lastly, there is the situation of the Jews. Not only have they not disappeared, they have had the temerity to establish their own nation, where their people are protected from Muslim persecution. A source of enormous frustration. But as the Muslims don’t have Jewish populations — whom they can attack — within their lands any longer, they turn with increased ferocity upon the Christians who still live amongst them.
Jews and Christians, then, are united in recent history, in facing Islamic animosity, and need to make common cause.
A few diverse political observations:
Dr. Kedar provides a knowledgeable description of Islamic frustration. His understanding, his insight, is what is missing from most political analyses:
The Muslims were supposed to replace the Jews. That’s what their religious teachings tell them. How then can they be expected to accept with equanimity the success of the Jewish state? Israel is an irritant to them, in the best of circumstances.
How can they be expected to approach with genuine good will ideas of living side by side with Israel?
The answer is that this cannot realistically be expected of them — and especially is this the case because moderation is decreasing and there is a growing radicalization of Muslims, including the Muslims of Fatah (the PA/PLO).
And yet, this expectation is what the deluded and clueless leaders of the Western world continue to promote and foster.
Juliana Taimoorazy said this at the end of her presentation:
“The America I knew 20 years ago is not the America of today. Americans are very politically correct and wants to welcome everyone who comes.” But there are those who are coming, she explained, who are working to bring Sharia (Islamic) law. “I am very afraid for America.”
I, too, am very afraid for America. And it’s not just because the Muslims are coming, as they’ve come to Europe. It’s for another reason as well.
As I have struggled in the last few days in an attempt to understand what has happened with the last election, I have been advised time and again that America is not what she was because there is now a more diverse ethnic population. But this did not seem to me sufficient explanation. The United States is proudly a nation of immigrants. So, it’s different immigrants. So what?
And suddenly I knew “so what?”
I think back to the situation of the early years of the twentieth century, when the land was flooded with immigrants: Jewish, Italian, Greek and more. America in those days was referred to as a melting pot. The goal of immigrants was to become American, to absorb American values.
That is what is lost in today’s politically correct America, where everything is considered as good as everything else and it is not considered appropriate to attempt to inculcate American values in newcomers. “Old fashioned” values — such as self-reliance and defense of liberty at all costs and dedication to the constitution — are being diluted.
And along with it, notions of American exceptionalism, which for many decades made America the leader of the free world. No more. Now America leads from behind and the world is poorer for it.
John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural speech, said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” That was 52 years ago. Would his words reverberate throughout the land today, inspiring people?
A rhetorical question: The election just past was about entitlements — about what America would be doing for its citizens.
Add to this an America terribly divided — by ethnic group and economic class and more — because there is less sense of common peoplehood and all pulling together.
Hat Tip: BB
Hat Tip: BB
Here is video of a speech delivered by President Ronald Reagan at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Veteran’s Day – November 11, 1988.
Hat Tip: BB
Hat Tip: BB
Hat Tip: BB